Talk:Résumé

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mckenzienull.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Grabiluchi5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 18 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rvale045.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

More Citations & Facts Needed

This article has too many unreferenced claims that provide very little useful information. Please consider not deleting citations because they happen to point to a retail site. If retailers are privy to better information than researchers through industry trade you are depriving users of valuable information. There is no mention of the percentage of usage of Applicant Tracking Systems it's not even mentioned by name. This article needs to have industry professionals to add actual information not just broad statements which are more ambiguous than they are revealing. This article as it is now, on an important topic to many, is not worthy of being in any encyclopedia, peer reviewed or editor reviewed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.3.76 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

CV move discussion

See Talk:CV#Requested_move --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is enough difference between rèsumé vs CV to keep them separate. I valued the two distinct pages attesting to there dissimilar attributes. Gaclyde (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

US/Canada rèsumé vs CV

It would be helpful if, having mentioned the 'substantial differences' between a CV and a rèsumé in Canada and the US, they were actually detailed ... Daen (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"General" section

This section reads more as a "how to" guide than information about the subject, and has some unsubstantiated statements. It needs a rewrite. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling the resume a "marketing tool" utilizes imprecise and unprofessional language. It would be better to eliminate such vague and inproperly used words and discuss what it actually is. A tool to introduce a person's background and skill sets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.3.76 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

if you are using your resume simply to introduce your background/skill set, and not to market it, you are doing it wrong. --dan (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between a Resume and a CV

A Resume is a short document that gives information in its basic form. It will be set out in the following order, Name, Personal details, Employment history with most recent first including company name, dates of employment followed by 2 or 3 bullet points of duties carried out in that role. The Resume will then conclude with Education and Qualifications.

A CV (Curriculm Vitae) is more personal and allows the reader to connect with the writer. A CV is set out in the following order, Name, Personal Details, A Personal Profile, which is a short paragraph telling the reader what your occupation is with 2 key skills and length of experience within the idustry plus lots of Personality Buzz words, like Experienced, Diligent, Team player etc. A Skills section should then follow this with key skills relevant to the role that is being applied for and then a Key Achievements sentence that is work related. Employment history should then follow with the most recent first detailing company name including a short sentence on what that company actually does, employment dates and job title. 3 or 4 bullet points should accompany each entry of duties carried out within the role. Once this is complete then the Education and Qualifications should be entered (The only exception to this rule is if there is no work history that is relevant to the role being applied for however the qualifications achieved are relevant to the role, then this section should be placed after the Personal Profile). The CV should end with a paragraph on your Interests, for example: Video Games companies are always looking for employees with an interests in games.

The preceding statement is incredibly specific and therefore not applicable to all CVs as well as not being reflected in any definition of a CV ever known to be written by a credible source. 69.120.3.76 (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Videogamescv (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

However, it depends on the country. In Australia, resumes are individually crafted and formatted and there is really no set expectation on how they should be presented and in which order the information should be formatted. The word 'Resume' is commonly used in Australia, with CV not being so popular.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CareerOrigin (talk • contribs) 2010-05-07T08:54:16

Within Australia career advisors state that a résumé be only 2 pages in length, being a brief, succinct and customised document tailoring the applicant to the position being advertised. Australia's mainstream media follow this theme.Skythorn (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

By definition and orgin the two are very different. A CV should be thought of as a "course of life", or what a person has chosen to spend their time on and should not be written for an "employer", in almost all cases. In certain "professional" fields CV's are utilized like resumes, however it's a facsimile of a true CV which implies a personal document which highlights a person's life as they see fit, not necessarily highlighting what an employer would like to see.

A CV in the USA, outside of a few select fields, is not primarily used not as a "marketing tool" as someone suggested resumes are to gain any sort of employment but as a document to briefly describe the course of one's life to a peers, board members, or clients.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.3.76 (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 

Regarding "employers are becoming more accepting of résumés that are longer than two pages dubious–discuss", anecdotal evidence in my experience is that even a second page is a death knell for any job position south of the executive suite. The kneejerk response I've overheard time and again is, "If an applicant can't tell me in 1 page why I should hire him, it means that he himself doesn't know, and I don't have the time to help him find out." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.83.76 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation [ʁezyme] is all well and good, but that's the French pronunciation. It is never pronounced like that in English, not least because English uses tonic accent and so, at best, it would be [ˈʁezyme] or [ʁezyˈme]. Being bold and changing. — 194.74.1.82 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've just noticed it says "French pronunciation" before it. Never mind. Anyway, I'll add the English pronunciation. — 194.74.1.82 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

In the intro it says that it's sometimes spelt resumé or resume. I understand that some people mightn't know the accents / mightn't know how to type the accents and will end up writing resume, but there should really be a source cited for "rèsumé". People frequently getting the spelling wrong doesn't count as an alternate way of writing the word. Owen214 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

this isn't french; however people frequently spell it is right. --dan (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"However people spell it frequently", there still are correct or accepted spellings. Until ENOUGH people spell it one way, that is. For example, Connoisseur is "misspelled" if you think of it as a French word, but, like you said, this isn't French, so that is the correct spelling in English now. If you're using accents in résumé, you ought to use the correct French ones, or less. As English has none "natively", the use of incorrect accents is an orthographic mistake. That being said, it IS most often pronounced "Rèsumé" by English speakers, which might explain "etymology" of that spelling...Malixsys (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The word, I believe, is correctly spelled using grave accents (é) above both letters e. I note that in one place, Malixsys used the acute accent instead. I'm being hypercritical, I know. :) But the point I am getting to would be that, in English, spelling the word without accents should be perfectly acceptable, correct? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Correction, I now see Malixsys' point: that English speakers often mispronounce the word, and thus the acute. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why does the stock resume list /John/ Doe and say /he/ worked at Victoria's Secret? I somehow doubt he helped customers in making decisions. 69.169.148.14 (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The two words are used as an alternative for one another. I think if we merge the articles and just mention there that there is a slight difference between them in Canada and Australia, it would be better. In addition, sources should be added to support the difference between the two terms. I read the current discussion page, there were different discussions, but neither of them was based on sources to support the difference between the two. --Wayiran (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Even in the US, the terms mean different things. Libcub (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide any source supporting the same? --Wayiran (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikitionary. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

wiktionary cites résumé and CV as synonymsMalixsys (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The article implies that they only mean different things in academia. Most people don't work in academia. – Smyth\^talk 11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

i don't know about academia, but in my experience people in the legal field tend to use cv. the only difference between the two seems to be the name of the document. --dan (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. They're mostly the same thing, and if in some countries, a difference is made, then that can be explained in the merged article. The name of the merged article should be "Curriculum vitae", since that's the more commonly used term internationally. Teemu Leisti (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Do Not Merge. They are two totally distinct things. A resume is a single page (or maybe 2 page) document with brief descriptions mainly in bullet points. A CV is 2 or 3 pages, and it includes more in-depth information is full sentences. Do Not Merge. 134.83.1.244 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge. They are the same "thing", detailing or summarizing your employment history and/or qualifications in varying, more or less specific formats. Different groups of speakers sometimes use one of the two terms specifically to refer to a particular format, while others use the terms interchangeably, but there is no consistency overall and no universal authoritative source. These inconsistent differences should therefore be explained in a merged article.Malixsys (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. They are similar, but not the same thing. Resume is for looking for jobs, CV is more for academia. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose merger. I agree with the above. They are similar, but definitely not the same thing. I would never refer to a CV as a resume or vice versa. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

To resume differentiating between the use of curriculum vitae (CV) and rèsumé

You may wish to consider some quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary:

curriculum vitae (abbreviation: CV) noun - a brief account of a person's education, qualifications, and previous occupations, typically sent with a job application.

rèsumé (noun) - 1 a summary: "I gave him a quick rèsumé of events". 2 North American - a curriculum vitae: "Using email, I've been able to review rèsumés, cover letters, even outlines of talking points for an interview."

Easily confused words: Rèsumé means ‘a summary’ (a quick rèsumé of events;); it is a French word, and is usually spelled with accents on the e's. It should not be confused with resume, which means ‘begin again after a pause’ (the talks will resume in April).

It would appear that a common North American use of "rèsumé" is for the same thing as referred to in British English as a "curriculum vitae"; however, this does not necessitate the conclusion that both words, in North American use, are consistently understood to mean the same thing. Concerning the use of "resume", the only rational conclusion I can draw is to rather use "curriculum vitae" instead of "rèsumé", if one cannot do better than misspelling the latter as "resume". Gseydack (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No opinion on what specifically should be done with the article without studying it more closely, but a couple of general points. First of all, "resume" is not a "misspelling"; it's an established alternative spelling of "rèsumé", according to at least four dictionaries: Oxford American, Merriam-Webster Collegiate, American Heritage, and Random House. ("Resumé" is also listed as an alternative.) Second, "CV" is sometimes used interchangeably with "rèsumé" in North America, although its use is less common and sometimes it does mean something slightly different (as the article indicates). Rivertorch (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

CV versus Resume

I do not believe that the CV Wiki page and the Resume wiki pages should be merged. Although some people use the words interchangeably, this phrase-swapping is not accurate, at least in the U.S. Resumes are designed to be brief, as short as 1 page, but not more that 4. Resume's are concise introductions of a person's experience and requisites. A CV, on the other hand, is extensive, and can surpass 30 pages in length. CVs are intended to be a near-bibliographic history of a person's experience. Often times, a person will have either a CV, or a resume, depending on the person's field or experience. Personally, I have both a CV and resumes. My CV is extensive and lists all of my relevant experience/history. My resumes, however, are specific to the message I wish to convey through that resume. For example, my CV lists all of my volunteer committees and chairmanships, but my resumes only discuss committees and chairmanships as they pertain to the position I am being considered for. Stiche1775 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I truly don't think CV and Resumé deserve their own separate wiki article. One is enough. Especially when the difference between them can be explained in a couple sentences. Angry bee (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason the accent(s) are often missing

Nobody seems to mention that a large part of the reason that Rèsumé is often misspelled as Resumé or even Resume is because it's done so by people in countries (like the US or UK) where we simply don't have such characters on our keyboards. It's the same reason Café is spelled Cafe. I would guess that 95% of Windows users don't know about Alt-keycodes or have the idea of coming here to copy/paste it to their document. Besides, when a word is borrowed from another language, it will often not retain either the correct accented spelling or even the correct pronunciation, even when it's a noun (anyone for a glass of Moet & Chandon in my Porsche?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.181.207 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

How often does one have time to hunt Word menus to figure out how to type these things? I tried alt-"e" and it didn't work. A pop-up advised to "continue typing the menu key sequence from an earlier version of Office or press ESCAPE to cancel". As stated, I don't have the time or the inclination to try to figure out what this means. It's not like I need to type a diacritical every day. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that the reason the accents are dropped? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

While there's much truth in the above, accents were routinely dropped even before the age of the typewriter, let alone the personal computer. And even Mac users, who have had easy access to diacriticals for more than a quarter of a century, often don't bother to make an 'é' instead of an 'e'. One explanation for the one-accent spelling, "resumé", is that the first syllable is pronounced with a short 'e', at least to the west of the Pond (and, I suspect, elsewhere, although the word itself may be less common elsewhere). It would be nice to find a source that discusses this, but I'm not hopeful. Rivertorch (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Reasoning for the accent on the first e

I've always seen resumé spelled either with the accent over the second e or no accent at all, like resume. But where did the first accent come from? It's important for people to realize that the accents aren't just there for show or to demonstrate that you're cool enough to put an accent above your e's. They actually tell the reader how to pronounce the word. For instance, résumé would imply you'd pronounce it as "r-ay-su-may", whereas the way it's generally pronounced is "reh-su-may", or resumé. The accent above the é gives the e that "ay" sound. It's about all I remember from my French classes, but that stuck. :) So, it just seems wrong to have the entire document use the accent over the first e. I strongly recommend fixing this.

Mort253 (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See wikt:résumé.—Wavelength (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Consider the relevant entries at various major dictionaries. Of six I checked, only American Heritage lists resumé as the first spelling, while Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Random House, Chambers, and Collins all list "résumé" first. (Chambers actually offers no alternative spellings, just the one.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.onelook.com/?w=résumé&ls=a.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool site! I don't like to cite things like thefreedictionary.com or dictionary.reference.com, though, because they're aggregators and not reference works in and of themselves. The content they display is from multiple sources which may change over time. Rivertorch (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

English spelling of 'resume'

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The French spelling is used by many, with the accent marks, on the mistaken belief that it is the only correct version, even though, for documents written in English, 'resume' is correct and 'résumé' incorrect. And this should be obvious, requiring no explanation, but here are 6 reasons: The spelling with two accent marks is French, while this Wikipedia page is localized to those who speak English. The English alphabet does not use accents. For reasons of simplification that usually occur with common usage. 'résumé' is significantly harder to type. There are no – zero – nada – other foreign words, French or otherwise, in common English usage that require a nonstandard alphabet, so why make this the one exception? It seems pretentious, which is not just my opinion but the consensus. Common usage takes precedence over dictionaries, since dictionaries include many foreign words that aren’t in common usage and most dictionaries don’t consider common usage. Recruiters who email me asking for my resume never accent the word – that effectively demonstrates “common usage.” And if you google resume, most occurrences of it aren’t accented, and that’s not due to ignorance. See how I didn’t capitalize google? That’s another example of how words become simplified with common usage. There should be a “History” paragraph for this word, in which one might explain this. It seems resume would be too trivial to require an entry in Wikipedia at all (since it’s meaning is simple: a summary of job skills) but for a Wikipedia page that is this bulky, not discussing this is a glaring omission. Americans might be more conscientious of accenting the final e than the French! I mean, wouldn’t that be ironic? For these reasons, one might expect consistent use of the English version of the word for this Wikipedia entry, otherwise the bias for the French version should be explained. Or is Wikipedia just being pretentious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditor2563 (talk • contribs) 10 November 2013, 16:10 (UTC) __________________ The consensus is not as clear as all that - if you look a couple of sections above this one, you'll see another editor proclaiming that the spelling without accent marks is a misspelling. The truth of the matter is that all three variants (with one accent, two accents, or no accent) are used in English, and neither variety is a misspelling - it's just different usage. There are English words with accents, that is not a matter of opinion I'm afraid. Many (most?) of them can also be spelt without an accent, but that doesn't change the fact that accents exist in English. The English alphabet may not include accented letters, but that is a different thing altogether. Wikipedia defers to "common usage" only when it has been conclusively shown in reliable sources that a particular usage is "common usage"; what you, or I, or any other individual editor think we know based on our own experience and knowledge is anecdotal evidence, not a reliable source, I'm afraid. I strongly agree that an etymology section would be appropriate. Such a section must be completely neutrally phrased without claims of what is the correct spelling (although if there are notable differences in dictionaries, that can be mentioned), and it must include reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 16:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC) ___________________ The consensus actually seems pretty clear, if not always consistent, and the one editor you mention does not, by any means, support your point. Just do a google search. You do realize that it's a French word, right? Do you see my 6 reasons? How the word is accented does not represent different usage, but inconsistency - it's too bad even Wikipedia only perpetuates this inconsistency. Resume always means "summary of work experience." It seems your comments are not informed. There are no common English words with accents - I said common, and resume is certainly a common word. The English language has taken many foreign words, to be sure, I never said or implied otherwise, but we TRANSLATE the words so that special marks are avoided - the English language clearly avoids the special marks common in French and other languages. You even state "Wikipedia defers to "common usage" only when it has been conclusively shown in reliable sources that a particular usage is "common usage." "Common use" means it's plain to see, so one needn't consult an expert to "confirm" that something is common. If employment recruiters universally spell it "resume," how much more conclusive can you get? Also, you say "The English alphabet may not include accented letters, but that is a different thing altogether." That's not at all a "different thing" but entirely relevant to my point, and may best support my argument, since English words are built using the English alphabet and not another. Simply because the computer keyboard lacks an accented e, and its ubiquity in communication, one could argue that the accented e is simply passé. Ah, even here the autocorrect placed an accent on the e of passé, but not of resume. What does that tell you? Isn't it interesting that the Wikipedia autocorrect put an accent on passé but not resume? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditor2563 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC) I'm seeing a great deal of conjecture and a certain amount of logic, but it's all insufficient to include the disputed content. I agree with Bonadea: an etymology section is fine if it meets policy (WP:V/WP:RS and WP:NPOV), but original research is unacceptable, no matter how much sense it may seem to make to you, me, or anyone. Rivertorch (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC) The entire addition is based on opinion, as well as ending in a POV comment on its usage. The arguments given on this talk page for it are based purely on original research. The section is unquestionably not appropriate in its currently proposed form. What are needed are reliable sources and a cleanup to present a neutral point of view. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC) ___________________ What do you mean "based on opinion?" Resume is a French word, that's a fact, as are all the other points I make. Do you think it's an English word? I mean, what are you, illiterate? I've done no research. Did you think I "researched" those 6 points, my God, they're all off the top of my head, if I researched the matter I'd find additional reasons. What are you going to do, accuse me of vandalism while agreeing a section on etymology is justified? HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU THREATEN ME WHILE ADMITTING A SECTION ON ETYMOLOGY IS JUSTIFIED, BECAUSE YOUR "phrasing" would be a bit different??? Give-me-a-break! You're arrogance is breathtaking. You're going to BLOCK me because your "phrasing" is different from mine...? If you continue to threaten me and remove my contributions I will recommend that your edit privileges be removed, what are you, the Wikipedia gestapo? I am fascinated how quickly some of my edits are removed - which you agree are sensible! As if you're just SITTING by your computer WAITING! Where there could be no time for you to even consider my edits! Does your boss know you're using company property for personal reasons? Maybe if you took the time to simply "rephrase" my contributions we would all be better off, for God's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditor2563 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 12 November 2013‎ No, your points are not facts, they are opinions. To say "Resume is a French word" when you are talking about its usage in English is an opinion, it is not a fact. It's a perfectly valid opinion, but it's not a fact. "Resume entered English from French", or "Resume is a borrowing from French" would be facts. Most of your other points above are also not facts but opinions. There are two exceptions: the lack of accents in the English alphabet, which was discussed above and is in fact irrelevant, especially since the French alphabet has no accents either; and the point that common usage leads to simplification, which is sometimes true but sometimes not - and that claim is a fact based on a solid body of research. Please remove or strike out and apologise for the personal attack against Barek in your post above. This discussion, which could be quite interesting and could potentially lead to real improvement of the article, becomes utterly impossible if any of the parties resorts to name-calling. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 07:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC) WikiEditor2563 - I reviewed the warning that you received on your talk page re: potential blocking. It was given by another editor due to your repeated violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and you were also warned about the three revert rule, which can also potentially result in a block. This is not arrogance - it is warnings that your editing has been disruptive because it goes against established Wikipedia policies. You also seem to have taken offense at the mention that your edits amount to original research. I suggest you read that policy at WP:NOR, as the first two paragraph makes clear what that term means on Wikipedia, which differs from the interpretation of the phrase you seem to be expressing above. Those two paragraphs also make clear why it's not a simple matter of rewording your contribution - instead, third party reliable sources are required that would directly support the addition. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC) The user who opened this thread is now indefinitely blocked and has stated explicitly he or she does not wish to be unblocked. I'd like to hat this now and, if necessary, discuss any legitimate issues in a separate thread. Any objections? Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC) No objections here. Good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 07:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Updates To Reflect Current Trends

I feel that the opinions expressed here (particularly about emergence of graphic- and video- driven resumes) are out of date. Some of the references cited are dated 2008 - a lot has happened since then. Infographic resumes have exploded and, some argue, became a passing fad. Also, so-called "website resumes" got some traction, though mainly in the tech industry. Finally, recruiters in 2014 tend to agree that resumes are nearing their end (to be replaced by LinkedIn). I've made edits to describe these shifts. I've also cleaned up the formatting to improve readability. (Lee11Jam (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC))

Can you add sources for this? Without them, I will challenge this. Although there was a recent trend in making your profile more like a resume, I have never come accross any info that would confirm what you put in that section. And actually, a recent article from Mashable (perhaps the epitome of pop culture/tech reporting in the Web 2.0 age) actually advises AGAINST using your LinkedIn profile as a resume. Alphachimera (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please be more specific about which part you're challenging. Am I right in saying that you disagree with the part that LinkedIn is replacing resumes? Perhaps I do need to flesh it out - the difficulty there is that it's very much true for some sectors, countries and job types and very much isn't for others; rates of adoption vary greatly at this point. Having said that, the overall trend is very much towards replacing resumes with online portfolios which showcase successfully completed projects. I've provided references for support. Mashable needs to be taken with a grain of salt - it may be a touchstone of tech reporting for the modern generation and is perceived as an authority, however it also has a strong whiff of link-baited content that is put together by content creators who, I'll argue, have never held a recruitment or HR position. (Lee11Jam (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC))

I'm still going to challenge the line about LinkedIn on the basis of non-objectivity. You can't cite LinkedIn's self-promoting resources to say LinkedIn is replacing traditional resumes or hiring practices. Alphachimera (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If there are no sources independent of LinkedIn, then it doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. Lee11Jam, if you want to add it back in, I think it would be a better fit in the "resume evaluation" section, not the personal branding/tech startup section, and it needs to be neutrally cited. Alphachimera (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's hard to say that the trends are leading in any direction unless you have some statistical evaluation. I was a recruiter in the tech industry for many years, and we pretty much asked for a traditional resume every single time, and I'm pretty sure any job posting you look at online will ask for a traditional resume. That being said I did get offered a job interview based on my online resume. http://www.genoseo.com/Eugene-Song-Resume — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6190:DD00:F2B4:79FF:FE1A:358A (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"Resumé"

This is not a formal request, but I would just like to point out that "resumé" is the most neutral of spelling variants, at least according to Wiktionary. "Resume" is given the US tag, "résumé" the chiefly North America, Australia tag, and "resumé" no region-specific tag. Therefore, it should be the preferred spelling for this article, unless any other editors feel that it deserves a regional tag on its respective Wiktionary listing. WikiWinters (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, and Europe more widely, I have never seen résumé and resumé is clearly preferred. The second accent is retained from French because the second accent continues to be pronounced in English (and may be required for disambiguation) - the first accent is not pronounced.

Resumé is, for the same reason, the official Van Dale dictionary spelling in Dutch.

The word also doesn't retain the same meaning as French, being a metonym, so there is no useful reason to preserve the spelling.

I don't object to the other two spellings but it's a bit jarring that the most common spelling in the UK is, apparently deliberately, erased by the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:2712:3A00:7423:52FC:D081:FB0 (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Needs some history

As a casual user of Wikipedia, I was surprised to see no historical background on the origins of resumes. Guess I'll go back to Google now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.181.219 (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What Should Be Considered Spam

This is a conversation we have been having about adding a source. Any inputs would be appreciated, including what should be considered as spam and whether some online sites are being given a free pass. Please share your thoughts.

When you look at the resume page, there are many references to pages even less credible than http://workbloom.com/resume/resume-formats.aspx and yet you find no issue with them...

Resume writing is often thought of as an art with no strict rules. We deal here with "accepted standards" that evolve over time. For example, it was standard to include an objective statement in the past, but no longer. We're not dealing with "facts" here.

The page on WorkBloom does a good point of summarizing the 3 types of resume formats most often used and accepted by resume writers. Further, there was no reference on the page to a source, so it makes sense to add a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And I'm at a loss as to why you would reinstate a reference to a page that we have to pay to view. How can anybody who did not pay the subscription fee verify the relevance of the page? I.e. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-resumes-have-evolved-since-their-first-creation-in-1482-2011-2?op=1

   Hi. We usually discuss these things on a given article's talk page, but I'm putting my two cents in here because I just undid your most recent edit at Resumé and then I saw you'd commented here on Ronz's page. While references using freely available web pages are preferred, there is no prohibition on citing pages behind firewalls. If there were, we'd lose thousands of valid citations every day. Regarding the WorkBloom ref, I was unable to confirm that it meets the guideline on reliable sources. In general, it's better to cite no source than to cite a questionable one; if the content needs a citation because it's not obvious, and you can't find one, better to just tag it  (or, if it's highly doubtful, remove it). Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that the page is not a credible source when you accept these pages full of ads: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/reverse-chronological-resume-format-focusing-on-w0.html http://jobsearch.about.com/cs/curriculumvitae/f/cvresume.htm I spent time to help edit just to see these rigid comments that make no sense and are totally inconsistent. How do you assess a "credible" source? I assess it by its content, not by how big the site is. Doing what you're doing you imply because it's a big site it's credible.

Further, if you look at the talk page of résumé, you would see this: "More Citations & Facts Needed

This article has too many unreferenced claims that provide very little useful information. Please consider not deleting citations because they happen to point to a retail site. If retailers are privy to better information than researchers through industry trade you are depriving users of valuable information. There is no mention of the percentage of usage of Applicant Tracking Systems it's not even mentioned by name. This article needs to have industry professionals to add actual information not just broad statements which are more ambiguous than they are revealing. This article as it is now, on an important topic to many, is not worthy of being in any encyclopedia, peer reviewed or editor reviewed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.3.76 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs)

It is these kinds of things that alienate people from editing on Wikipedia. People that actually know about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"If retailers are privy to better information than researchers through industry trade you are depriving users of valuable information... This article needs to have industry professionals to add actual information not just broad statements which are more ambiguous than they are revealing." If you were in the field, you would know that WorkBloom is a credible and independent source providing comprehensive tips for job seekers. There is so much to change on the résumé page, but we get stuck with these little technical, empty edits. I may be new to Wikipedia, but not to resume writing, so please, reinstate that footnote or refer this to a higher authority and clean up the rest of the page, if you insist on having "proper" references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

About firewalls, there may be no prohibition, but that's not saying that a citation hiding behind a firewall is a good thing. A citation should be easily verifiable, otherwise, it would be in the hands of a few and not subject to open scrutiny. That's not how you build an open and strong community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

   Given past the past spamming of WorkBloom, you're going to have a difficult time convincing anyone it belongs.
   You are correct, the references can be improved.
   Please take the discussion to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, I don't appreciate that you move my comments. This comment was intended towards spam generally and belonged at the top, not at the bottom of the page. It's a continuation/comment regarding what was mentioned in the top section. And don't change the title to "WorkBloom as a source". It's not about WorkBloom, it's about the integrity of edits and sources used in general.

Ynfyny.8, new discussions go at the bottom of the talk page—period. You weren't adding to an old thread, you were starting a new one, so this is where it belongs. Second, please sign each post on any talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of whatever you have to say. Third, if you're going to copy something that another user wrote on another page, as you did above with what I wrote elsewhere, it's a good idea to (1) grab the text from the edit window, so that any markup the user added is included, and (2) notify that user. Please consult this how-to guide and this guideline page for advice on these and other matters. You're new to editing Wikipedia (welcome, by the way!) and you can't be expected to know any of this yet, but try to be patient. If you go through channels to raise valid concerns, someone will usually come along and either help fix what's bothering you or else explain why it's not a problem.

I said elsewhere (and you pasted it in above) that "it's better to cite no source than to cite a questionable one; if the content needs a citation because it's not obvious, and you can't find one, better to just tag it {{cn}} (or, if it's highly doubtful, remove it)". The reason for this is that junk references can give the impression that the content of an article is not only verifiable but verified when it isn't anything of the kind.

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that the reliability of a given source is generally considered in absolute, not relative, terms. In other words, the existence of one or more junk references doesn't justify the addition of more—not even if the new one seems slightly more reliable than the old ones. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Resume format

Actually there are not 2, but 3 resume styles (formats): chronological, functional, combination. Well, at least I found such information on the Federal Resume guide https://resumeadvise.com/what-is-the-best-resume-format/ It provides very detailed and step by step instructions with examples. There are special conditions and restrictions according to which some particular format should be applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.191.178.84 (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)